Welcome

Betts & Associates is committed to providing each of our clients with top quality legal representation and achieving successful outcomes for their cases. We specialize in representing individuals and businesses in all areas of complex civil litigation matters. Our firm provides legal services with skill, strength, and integrity to residents all over the state of Georgia.

Betts and Associates offer a wide range of skills in almost all areas of the legal practice. Our commitment to growing a wide range of more discrete practice areas allows us to better assess client needs and provide prompt and effective legal solutions. Our firm was founded on the belief in providing personal service and valuable legal counsel that addresses our client's needs creatively. After a decade, that has not changed. We ensure that every client's case is carefully handled every step of the way.

If you need advice about the best way to approach and resolve your case, consider Betts & Associates. To request a legal consultation, contact our office at 404-577-8888 to schedule an appointment. We are proud to provide personal service and practical solutions for those with even the most complex legal concerns.

Published on:January 31, 2013

Georgia Premises Liability Basics: Part II – Knowledge of the Hazard

First, we hope everyone is keeping safe from the slick, rainy conditions outside! Today, we will continue our discussion on Premises Liability in Georgia by talking about the types of knowledge an owner/occupier must have to be liable in negligence.

How Can I Prove Premises Liability for Hazardous/Dangerous Conditions?

An invitee can recover damages in a slip and fall if she proves two things: (1) that the owner/occupier had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard, and (2) that despite the exercise of ordinary care, the invitee lacked knowledge of the hazard due to actions or conditions within the owner/occupier’s control. Cocklin v. JC Penney Corp., 674 S.E.2d 48 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). Absent knowledge of the dangerous condition, there can be no causation (an essential element to make out a claim in negligence).

Failing to use reasonable care in inspecting premises can give rise to constructive knowledge where the owner or occupier had an opportunity to discover the dangerous condition and to remedy it. This was the case in Valentin v. Six Flags Over Georgia, L.P., 286 Ga. App. 508, 510-11 (2007) where the appellate court found that Six Flags breached its duty by failing to conduct a reasonable inspection that would have allowed for discovery and remedy of an alleged unsecured mat and mildew hazard.

Thus, when the owner/occupier knows or should know about a dangerous condition on the premises, a plaintiff may likely have an actionable claim despite the defense of assumption of risk (which will be discussed in tomorrow’s post).